Battle Which is better Chromium or Ungoogled Chromium?

[HarborFront]

Are we looking at the same issue trackers? Your unrelated points detract from the discussion.

Update windows binary · Issue #1519 · ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

It's been three weeks since the v90 update and there's still no windows binary for that. Can anyone please upload a windows v90 binary .exe ?

github.com

Please update windows binary ! ! · Issue #1555 · ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

Please update windows binary because the current version 89.0.4389.114-1 is very old

github.com

I have already mentioned. Since v89 the maintainer (@tangalbert919) has not been on the forum so the browser was not being build. There was a hard to fix issue in v90 but no further elaboration by the maintainer.

The latest codes are here. Please build it to help the community

Release 91.0.4472.164-1 · ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

Google Chromium, sans integration with Google. Contribute to ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

 

[HarborFront]

Can you stop ignoring the linked issues? There are errors with the build that have not been resolved and I have no interest in trying to resolve them.

I already answered the point. Why did you leave out the below statement in my above post?

"There was a hard to fix issue in v90 but no further elaboration by the maintainer."

It's up to user to choose their browser(s) considering the security/privacy issues the browser(s) has. You can don't use UC if you feel it's not secure

 

[HarborFront]

Again, it's a problem in the build script that has not been resolved. The maintainer tried to rebase on 90 and gave up. Users that have tried to compile the Windows build have been unable to do so, thus the binaries have not been updated. I'm only here because you are continually misrepresenting my points and ignoring the facts.

Whatever was the reason for the absence of the maintainer is just guesswork, as there's no further elaboration by him (as far as I read from the forum).

There's no misrepresentation of your points, as users are aware of the fact in the shortcomings in using UC. Like I mentioned, whatever points you have raised in your article are not new, as they have been discussed in other sites/forums.

And to answer your next post. Yes, I'm using UC all these while, and I'm aware of the shortcomings of UC for now. FYI, this is not the first time that UC has lagged the Chrome release for a few versions.

I reiterate. Users must be aware of the pros and cons in using their browser(s) in areas of security/privacy. No browser is perfect.

 

[South Park]

Some websites, especially speech-to-text sites like talktyper.com, don't work at all in MS Edge or Ungoogled Chromium but work fine in regular Chromium and other browsers like Slimjet that hew closer to it. That is the main reason I use regular Chromium.

 

[KurniaK]

Being that use of Ungoogled Chrome presents the issue of questionable binaries, I have decided to uninstall it, and use Brave as my secure browser.

Just as there is no such thing as the perfect non-bloated do everything security software, the same applies to browsers

Boils down to personal preference, and good surfing habits.

"Being that use of Ungoogled Chrome presents the issue of questionable binaries" this is dealbreaker for U-chromium. It's not mainsteam and not popular, contributor not well known. Can't really do that on personal browser when everything you do in the internet goes through it, all your password and credentials.

 

[HarborFront]

"Being that use of Ungoogled Chrome presents the issue of questionable binaries" this is dealbreaker for U-chromium. It's not mainsteam and not popular, contributor not well known. Can't really do that on personal browser when everything you do in the internet goes through it, all your password and credentials.

You have been forewarned in the use of those binaries at Eloston site

However, you can allay your fears by using Wireshark (or similar network protocol analyzer software) to monitor the outgoing connections. If you are suspicious of some connections you can post them at UC (Eloston) website and see if you can get any help.

It's not a mainstream browser and some sites/apps may not work. I was trying MS Teams the other day but it's not a recognizable browser by MS Teams. I believe MS Teams only recognize Google Chrome and MS Edge. Sites like talktyper.com (as mentioned above) and GMX Mail (which I'm using) also don't work in UC.

If you are using extensions then be careful of what extensions you are using.

 

[gigi64]

What do you think about Slimjet?
Do you think it's good?
In terms of security ?
In terms of speed ?

 

[South Park]

What do you think about Slimjet?
Do you think it's good?
In terms of security ?
In terms of speed ?

It updates infrequently and is always a version or two behind Chromium Stable. Its built-in ad blocker is very weak and must be supplemented by ad blocking DOH. That said, it's very fast and is one of the few non-Google Chrome browsers that works with the Google voice API (the only other one being the NON-Ungoogled Chromium).

 

[ForgottenSeer 92963]

I just installed the ungoogled version of Marmaduke on Woolyss, that one is up to date and based on Ungoogled-Chromium project of Eloston.

I think the discussion what is better: using Ungoogled Eloston Chromium or the well updated Marmaduke Ungoogled Chromium.

I know privacy purists claime that Eloston is more Ungoogled than Marmuaduke's Ungoogled Chromium, but the latter usually follows new Chrome releases with a few days (which is very much appreciated by security purists).

Hope some members with experience of both drop in to give their opinion on Eloston vs Marmaduke.

Thx

 

[oldschool]

Hope some members with experience of both drop in to give their opinion on Eloston vs Marmaduke

Marmaduke.

 

[HarborFront]

I just installed the ungoogled version of Marmaduke on Woolyss, that one is up to date and based on Ungoogled-Chromium project of Eloston.

View attachment 263490
I think the discussion what is better: using Ungoogled Eloston Chromium or the well updated Marmaduke Ungoogled Chromium.

I know privacy purists claime that Eloston is more Ungoogled than Marmuaduke's Ungoogled Chromium, but the latter usually follows new Chrome releases with a few days (which is very much appreciated by security purists).

Hope some members with experience of both drop in to give their opinion on Eloston vs Marmaduke.

Thx

If you are talking of a ready-browser then UC (Eloston) is slow to release than other variants

However, the source code for the latest release is always there at

Releases · ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

Google Chromium, sans integration with Google. Contribute to ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

If you can compile it into a browser and use it.

So, technically speaking, UC (Eloston) is not much later than other variants. It just need the source code to be compiled into a browser

It'll be later because upgrading from one version to another requires much time and changes whereas interim upgrades require less changes so can have faster source code releases

 

[ForgottenSeer 92963]

If you are talking of a ready-browser then UC (Eloston) is slow to release than other variants

However, the source code for the latest release is always there at

Releases · ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

Google Chromium, sans integration with Google. Contribute to ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

If you can compile it into a browser and use it.

So, technically speaking, UC (Eloston) is not much later than other variants. It just need the source code to be compiled into a browser

It'll be later because upgrading from one version to another requires much time and changes whereas interim upgrades require less changes so can have faster source code releases

Thanks, I wonder how many people do compile Eloston? Do you compile it every time yourself?

 

[HarborFront]

Thanks, I wonder how many people do compile Eloston? Do you compile it every time yourself?

Nope I don't do compilation. I just wait for the browser to be made available

To do compilation you'll need

1) a very powerful dedicated desktop PC to shorten the compilation time

2) must know how to troubleshoot problem when error messages pop up

 

[ForgottenSeer 92963]

I noticed the Anonymize local IPs exposed by WebRTC is not working and opened an issue at Github, let's see how they respond to find out whether this version is actively maintained: Bug: Anonymize local IPs exposed by WebRTC not working · Issue #21 · mtslzr/homebrew-marmaduke-chromium

@HarborFront so how long do you have to wait on average?

 

[HarborFront]

I noticed the Anonymize local IPs exposed by WebRTC is not working and opened an issue at Github, let's see how they respond to find out whether this version is actively maintained: Bug: Anonymize local IPs exposed by WebRTC not working · Issue #21 · mtslzr/homebrew-marmaduke-chromium

@HarborFront so how long do you have to wait on average?

I noticed the recent 2 latest interim releases of v96.xx do not have browsers. Not sure whether anybody will be releasing the v97 browser.

I believe it's at least 10 days after Chrome releases

 

[HarborFront]

@Kees1958

Quote

I noticed the Anonymize local IPs exposed by WebRTC is not working and opened an issue at Github, let's see how they respond to find out whether this version is actively maintained: Bug: Anonymize local IPs exposed by WebRTC not working · Issue #21 · mtslzr/homebrew-marmaduke-chromium

Unquote

Yes, it did not work out in UC(Eloston) as well. Likely, it's a Chromium issue

I use Adguard for Desktop to block WebRTC

BTW the WebRTC issue has been brought up in UC(Eloston) forum below

WebRTC still leaks the local IP of users · Issue #1725 · ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium

Describe the bug Apparently the #enable-webrtc-hide-local-ips-with-mdns flag has no effect on this version, as the browser would ignore it (whether default or enabled) and still leak the local IP a...

github.com

 

[ForgottenSeer 92963]

@HarborFront THX, I did the same

 

[SearchLight]

I took the plunge and am using the latest Marmaduke version of UC. Yes, I am aware of the potential vulnerability of the binaries used to compile a version of UC as other posters have inferred but no browser is 100% secure.

With good add-ons like UbO, BTL, and WebRTC Leak, and smart browsing habits, we can get close.

My other browser is FF, and I am considering LibreWolf. I have not as yet decided on my default.

Usually I have found Chrome imo to be faster, and better in rendering web pages. Time will tell. Of course there is always the Uninstall Button.

 

[HarborFront]

I took the plunge and am using the latest Marmaduke version of UC. Yes, I am aware of the potential vulnerability of the binaries used to compile a version of UC as other posters have inferred but no browser is 100% secure.

With good add-ons like UbO, BTL, and WebRTC Leak, and smart browsing habits, we can get close.

My other browser is FF, and I am considering LibreWolf. I have not as yet decided on my default.

Usually I have found Chrome imo to be faster, and better in rendering web pages. Time will tell. Of course there is always the Uninstall Button.

Just remember UC and LW are non-mainstream browsers so some sites may not work